Just another example of the knee-jerk commie hippie liberal agenda on college campuses. Professors would rather protect terrorists than give an inch to protect their neighbors. And you people wonder why the community hates you.

You have to love being called a commie, queer, left winger, democrat, faggot, pinko and all kinds of other things just because you disagree with a political topic.

Ace...

Ace Barker wrote:

---

You have to love being called a commie, queer, left winger, democrat, faggot, pinko and all kinds of other things just because you disagree with a political topic.

Ace...

---

Let the record show that pejorative terms for a person's sexual orientation were introduced by Ace Barker and not by me. I have disdain for your politics as they affect me. Your sexual orientation does not affect my life, so I did not mention it.

Uncle Joe wrote:

---

So the Constitution is a "living document" when you want it to be but a "static document" when that definition best suits your needs? We could just do away with the need for all of this student wiretapping by COMPLETELY ENDING THE POLICY OF ALLOWING STUDENT VISAS. Stop this avenue for terrorists entering the U.S. and switch monitoring to faculty members on work visas.

---

You are stretching things a bit here, Uncle Joe.  I didn't say a word about the constitution being "living" or "static".  It does say we are protected from unwarranted search.  Let the feds get warrants, before or after the search, and I won't complain.  What I don't understand is how you, a red blooded American, can say you love and support this country and yet you are not against people violating our constitution.  Do you realize that some of the things you are in favor of are also principles supported by the KKK and Neo-Nazis?  

E V Debs wrote:

---

I believe we need more surveillance,not less. It's like I tell my children,if you've done nothing wrong what do have to hide.I've lived my life according to liberal principles and I fear no one.

---

But what if the constitution forbids that surveillance, E V Debs?  Are you for or against our constitution?  You are making a mistake it logic because it isn't a question of hiding.  If your children don't have a constitution agreement with you, your anology fails.

NotALawyerButCouldBe You do not understand how this works. There are some parts of the constitution that do not mean what it states in writing. Even though the language is clear that a citizen can bear arms, what it really means is that you can not bear arms in some states or cities and anyway it was all about a citizen army. While the constitution does not mention wiretapping (which is not technically what is being done), it clearly was intended to be included if the writers had known about wires. If your heart is pure, you can make this up as you go along.

NotALawyerButCouldBe wrote:

---

The interesting issue here is that there is a precedent that has survived the court system with regard to such surveillance. Whether or not the precedent is in your political party's favor or not is irrelevant. There are limits to every Constitutional "right" that individuals want to claim: limits on free speech, limits on the press, limits on privacy, limits on the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Those who refuse to concede that we are currently at war are living in a sheltered world far from reality. People often state that, given the choice between their liberties and their lives, they choose liberty over life, even when we're talking about small, incremental, temporary changes in some freedoms. That's fine as long as your choice doesn't affect my ability to choose. If by fighting these wiretaps and other measures some individuals give terrorists enough wiggle room to strike the U.S. again, then the second strike could have an impact on me or someone I love. Call me a Nazi, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the life of my child for anybody.

---

Whoa, Nelly!  Me thinks you are moving too fast here.  I didn't say "no surveillance".  The constitution allows warranted surveillance.  I just want some judge to check on this sometime (before is best, but after the fact will do) to make sure our "leaders" haven't become our "enemy".  I put the shoe on the other foot.  "What do our leaders have to hide if they are afraid of a judge checking their claims?"  We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people currently in power.  The constitution just provides the checks and balances. 

It has always interested me to observe the issues on which people are flexible and those issues on which they are absolutists. The so-called wire tapping issue brings out the absolute nature of many who are flexible as a noodle on other issues. Many are quite willing to restrain others in all sorts of ways regarding property, speech, right to carry a gun, and the right to be ugly equally across groups. They are ambiguous about how old a baby has to be before you cannot kill it and adamant that cold-blooded killers cannot be killed. These same folks are not flexible about someone monitoring their communications with a potential terrorist.

As I understand the request being made of the university regarding email, it is being asked of all providers of email accounts. The monitoring that is being carried out is a computer-operated screen of email traffic that looks for phrases and/or words that could be indicative of terrorist’s communication. Since there have been cases of people in universities having ties to terrorists organizations, it would be silly to exempt universities from the screening. The screening is not focused on any individual so the concept of a search warrant is meaningless. An individual would have to be identified as someone who is either a sender or receiver of suspicious emails. Once identified, a warrant can be issued.

Fortunately for us, we live in an area where a terrorist attack is less likely. However, many who live in the target rich cities are no less adamant that having a probability of being attacked is more acceptable than have a computer scan email traffic. Since the 9/11 attack is now in the distant past, potential attacks are a small worry for many.

LVN

I am not happy that we have been put into a position where this action becomes important to our well- being. I prefer more freedom to less, and resent that we are being threatened by the Muslin World. That said, I also resent that so many Americans are so cavalier about taking away our rights to own and carry guns. Guns also are a means by which we also can protect ourselves from danger. I expect some future posts by posters who claim that the two issues are different. They will be wrong. Both are losses of our freedoms, and both have the potential to put us at more risk. Each right we have under the constitution becomes easier for others to chip away at when we do not protect all of the rights. There is a group that says, listen in my communications because I have nothing to hide. I am not one of them. I happen think it is necessary at this point in time to protect us. There is a group that says ban guns because I do not like them; I would never own one, and you should not either. If it were not so tragic, it would be amusing to see so many people who have gleefully used government to force their silly ideas on others run around and claim the sky is falling. It is not falling, but as you note, the sky is lower than it was.

Aunt Josephine wrote:

---

Cossack wrote: It has always interested me to observe the issues on which people are flexible and those issues on which they are absolutists. The so-called wire tapping issue brings out the absolute nature of many who are flexible as a noodle on other issues. Many are quite willing to restrain others in all sorts of ways regarding property, speech, right to carry a gun, and the right to be ugly equally across groups. They are ambiguous about how old a baby has to be before you cannot kill it and adamant that cold-blooded killers cannot be killed. These same folks are not flexible about someone monitoring their communications with a potential terrorist. As I understand the request being made of the university regarding email, it is being asked of all providers of email accounts. The monitoring that is being carried out is a computer-operated screen of email traffic that looks for phrases and/or words that could be indicative of terrorist’s communication. Since there have been cases of people in universities having ties to terrorists organizations, it would be silly to exempt universities from the screening. The screening is not focused on any individual so the concept of a search warrant is meaningless. An individual would have to be identified as someone who is either a sender or receiver of suspicious emails. Once identified, a warrant can be issued. Fortunately for us, we live in an area where a terrorist attack is less likely. However, many who live in the target rich cities are no less adamant that having a probability of being attacked is more acceptable than have a computer scan email traffic. Since the 9/11 attack is now in the distant past, potential attacks are a small worry for many. Cossack, we can agree on this now.  All I want is the warrant, granted under the constitution, (before or after) monitoring of the individual.  Just some judge checking that the executive branch hasn't gone too far. In another post you wrote, "I also resent that so many Americans are so cavalier about taking away our rights to own and carry guns. "  I thought the constitution referred to the "bearing of arms".   Do you consider a personal rocket launcher (that can be carried by an individual) "arms" or should we limit this to carrying muskets?  No offense, but I wondered where you drew the line.  

---

I would allow "arms" to mean "personal rocket launchers" if it were up to me.  That's based on what I understand the Founders to have put this "right" in with the others for.

No offense, but I wondered where you drew the line.

You pose a reasonable question. My response is that you treat the ownership and use of guns (weapons) similarly to the way we treat other dangerous items. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns are what I have in mind. Rocket launchers are not useful in an ordinary citizen's life. I also do not wish to see someone purchase a military tank and drive it on the highway.

While your question is reasonable, it borders on the extreme case. If I am arguing for or against something, it is not reasonable to move the discussion to the extreme case to make the point and then assume that a moderate case also cannot be supported.

There is always the temptation to declare that those things I dislike are useless and unnecessary. Such statements almost always come with a goodly amount of emotional energy. I have heard people declare that poetry is useless (unless it has scatological humor attached). It is not a supportable position for reasonable people. The very reason that so much thought and effort went into the drafting of our constitution was that the framers knew well the propensities of citizens to want to use government to serve their own narrow wants and desires. One needs to be wary of the intolerance of those who wear the mantel of tolerance.

Uncle Joe wrote:

---

Just another example of the knee-jerk commie hippie liberal agenda on college campuses. Professors would rather protect terrorists than give an inch to protect their neighbors. And you people wonder why the community hates you.

---

Not knee jerk at all or commie, hippie, liberal, nor red-neck, like you.  Just based on the experience of the jolly little Shelby elves and their own wiretapping.  Actually we could save some money and time by just getting the little GNOMES in the DOME to continue their invasions of privacy.  They're better at it than the FEDS and have a generally much more ignorant constituency and know better how to get away with it.  Anything else from you Uncle Joe?

Cossack wrote:

---

My response is that you treat the ownership and use of guns (weapons) similarly to the way we treat other dangerous items. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns are what I have in mind. Rocket launchers are not useful in an ordinary citizen's life. I also do not wish to see someone purchase a military tank and drive it on the highway. While your question is reasonable, it borders on the extreme case. If I am arguing for or against something, it is not reasonable to move the discussion to the extreme case to make the point and then assume that a moderate case also cannot be supported. ... The very reason that so much thought and effort went into the drafting of our constitution was that the framers knew well the propensities of citizens to want to use government to serve their own narrow wants and desires. One needs to be wary of the intolerance of those who wear the mantel of tolerance.

---

Cossack, I didn't mean to go to the extreme case, but only try to determine how you interpret the constitution.   From what you write above, I see you are discussing what you would like rather than what the constitution says.  You also relate the possession of the weapon with the use of the weapon, which is not addressed by the constitution. 

Joeright seems to read the constitution as giving the citizens the right to weapons without any qualifications.  But I notice both of you failed to address the suitcase nuclear device.

My understanding (which I hope will be corrected if in error) is the constitution refers to a militia in the same paragraph.  Some believe the whole statement refers to the militia rather than the general public.  The interpretation has not been brought to and decided by a Supreme Court ruling.

 

joright wrote:

---

Regarding the thing in the suitcase.  Just take my previous post and extend it further.  You'll have my position on the suitcase thing. I have no confusion about what "militia" means, and it's not "the army (the gov't)."

---

I think I understand your interpretation of the constitution, Joeright, although I may not agree.  However, I didn't understand your last sentence.  What do you think militia means?  Why didn't they just say citizen if they mean the general public?

One more question, would you like to have the Supreme Count rule on this once and for all to end the debate?